|
HCAL 648/2023
[2026] HKCFI 3103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 648 of 2023
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Amaechi Morris William |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / |
Putative |
| |
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 3 May 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 10 March 2023 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) 11 April 2022 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and the DOI as the interested party.
2. The Applicant requested for a hearing but he was absent at the scheduled hearing on 14 May 2026. However, the Applicant turned up the following day in court.
3. Given his unexpected appearance on 15 May 2026, interpretation service was not arranged for his native language that day, I thus enquired with the Applicant if he was able to communicate in English. He confirmed that he was able to and also prepared to proceed in English without interpretation.
4. I then asked if he had anything to add, he confirmed that he had not.
Background
5. The Applicant is a national of Nigeria. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he was returned, he would be killed by people from whom he borrowed money but was stolen when he was in Hong Kong. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.
Discussion
6. In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).
7. In his affidavit filed in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.
8. Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [7-20].
9. The TCAB took into consideration the Applicant’s case and evidence, including his testimony at the hearing before it [21-33].
10. After thorough analysis and assessment, taking into account also the relevant Country of Origin Information, the TCAB came to find and conclude that the Applicant’s allegations were not made out [34-39], and none of the grounds was made out [42-45].
11. The TCAB further found and concluded that internal relocation would in any event be available to the Applicant [40-41].
12. I do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
Conclusion
13. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.
Dated the 11th day of June 2026
| |
(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant on 11 June 2026
Amaechi Morris William
Applicant’s ref. no.:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 11 June 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 20185
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2186/21 (formerly RBCZ 10750/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|